Khalil Janjua v. Donald Neufeld
933 F.3d 1061 (2019)
Rule of Law:
For purposes of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), an issue is considered "actually litigated" only if it was expressly raised, actively contested by the parties, and formally submitted to the court for determination in the prior adjudication.
Facts:
- Khalil Janjua is a native and citizen of Pakistan and a Muhajir.
- Janjua joined the Muhajir Qaumi Movement (MQM), a political group, and worked on its behalf by attending meetings, organizing rallies, and distributing flyers.
- As a result of his affiliation with and work for the MQM, Janjua was arrested and beaten multiple times by police and members of an opposition party in Pakistan.
- Janjua fled Pakistan in July 1998 and subsequently entered the United States without inspection on January 17, 1999.
Procedural Posture:
- In November 1999, Khalil Janjua applied for asylum with the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service.
- In January 2000, Janjua’s asylum application was rejected, and the government served him with a Notice to Appear (NTA) in removal proceedings, charging him with inadmissibility as an alien present without admission or parole.
- Janjua conceded removability but submitted applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- The immigration judge (IJ) initially denied Janjua’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the IJ's decision and remanded the case on the issue of Janjua's credibility.
- On remand, the IJ granted Janjua’s application for asylum in April 2007.
- In December 2008, Janjua filed a Form I-485, applying for adjustment of status to permanent residency.
- After years without adjudication, Janjua filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging unlawful delay and seeking to compel USCIS to adjudicate his adjustment of status application.
- USCIS denied Janjua’s adjustment of status application on August 2, 2016, on the ground that he was inadmissible for supporting the Muhajir Qaumi Movement (MQM), which it categorized as a Tier III terrorist organization.
- Janjua amended his complaint in the district court to challenge USCIS’s denial, arguing that issue preclusion prevented the government from raising terrorism-related inadmissibility.
- Janjua moved for summary judgment, and the government filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- On July 6, 2017, the district court denied Janjua’s motion and granted the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that issue preclusion did not apply because the issue had not been "actually litigated" in Janjua’s asylum proceedings.
- Janjua (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an issue qualify as "actually litigated" for purposes of issue preclusion only if it was expressly raised, contested by the parties, and submitted for determination in the prior adjudication?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Tashima
Yes, an issue is "actually litigated" for purposes of issue preclusion only if it was raised, contested by the parties, and submitted for determination in the prior proceeding. The Ninth Circuit, consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Judgments and its sister circuits, adopted this standard, emphasizing that issue preclusion applies only to matters "actually and necessarily determined," not to issues that merely could have been raised. The court rejected Janjua's argument that an issue should be considered actually litigated if it was implicitly raised or if the parties had a full and fair opportunity to raise it, explaining that such a standard would improperly conflate the separate requirements for issue preclusion and expand issue preclusion into the domain of claim preclusion. In Janjua's asylum proceedings, although his membership and activities with the MQM were discussed, the specific issue of whether he was inadmissible due to supporting a Tier III terrorist organization was never explicitly raised, contested, or submitted for the immigration judge's determination. Therefore, issue preclusion does not apply to prevent the government from raising this inadmissibility ground in Janjua’s subsequent adjustment of status proceedings.
Analysis:
This decision by the Ninth Circuit provides crucial clarity on the "actually litigated" element of issue preclusion, aligning its standard with the Restatement (Second) of Judgments and other circuits. By requiring issues to be expressly raised, contested, and submitted for determination, the court prevents the expansion of issue preclusion to matters that were merely implied or could have been litigated. This ensures that only genuinely litigated issues receive preclusive effect, reinforcing the distinction between issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) and claim preclusion (res judicata) and promoting judicial efficiency while safeguarding parties' rights to a full hearing on unlitigated matters.
